160 So. 3d 567
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- Floyd appeals a final judgment awarding costs and attorney's fees under 768.79 and rule 1.442, arguing the pre-trial proposal for settlement failed to comply strictly with the law and rule.
- Appellees filed their offer of settlement on April 23, 2013; the proposal itself was not filed at that time as required by rule 1.442(d).
- The proposal was served to Floyd by email under Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.516; Floyd rejected the proposal and the case went to trial, resulting in a defense verdict and zero damages for Floyd.
- Final judgment for the defendants was entered January 15, 2014; on February 6, 2014, defendants moved to tax costs and fees pursuant to 768.79 and 1.442, attaching the proposal and notice of service.
- The trial court held the proposal complied with the statute and rule despite lack of a formal certificate of service; Floyd argued lack of certificate and gender-typographical error created ambiguity.
- The First District Court of Appeal conducted de novo review and affirmed, concluding the proposal, notice, and emails complied with the current service requirements and there was no fatal ambiguity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did lack of a certificate of service invalidate the offer? | Floyd argues lack of certificate of service defeats 768.79 award. | Smith argues statute requires service, not a specific certificate; rule 2.516 governs service. | No; certificate not required under current service rules. |
| Did email service under rule 2.516 satisfy 768.79 and 1.442 requirements? | Floyd contends service via email may not meet service requirements. | Smith asserts email service complied with updated service rules and 1.442. | Yes; email service complied with current requirements. |
| Is the proposal fatally ambiguous due to gender error or other wording? | Floyd claims 'his/her claims' ambiguity could affect consideration. | Smith argues no ambiguity; proposal sufficiently clear for informed decision. | No ambiguity; proposal clear enough to support costs and fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- TGI Friday's, Inc. v. Dvorak, 663 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1995) (offers of settlement framework; deference to strict contemporaneous compliance)
- Campbell v. Goldman, 959 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 2007) (strict construction of costs/fee provisions)
- Design Home Remodeling Corp. v. Santana, 146 So. 3d 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (time requirements for offers of settlement cannot be treated as mere technical violations)
- Milton v. Reyes, 22 So. 3d 624 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (reliance on pre-change rule limits for certificate of service; de novo analysis)
- State Farm Auto. Ins. Co. v. Nichols, 932 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 2006) (settlement proposal must be clear and definite)
- Carey-All Transport, Inc. v. Newby, 989 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (clarity of settlement proposal; informed decision standard)
- Regions Bank v. Rhodes, 126 So. 3d 1259 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (de novo review of costs/fees under 768.79 and 1.442)
- Ambeca, Inc. v. Marina Cove Village Townhome Ass’n, Inc., 880 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (deference to statutory framework in fee-shifting context)